Retrieve mass, volume, surface area and center of mass for the active SolidWorks part or assembly to support measurement and design checks.
Mass, volume, surface area and centre of mass of the active document (part or assembly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mass_kg | Yes | ||
| volume_cm3 | Yes | ||
| volume_mm3 | Yes | ||
| surface_area_mm2 | Yes | ||
| center_of_mass_mm | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the meaningful scoping detail that it reads the *active* document and handles both parts and assemblies, but says nothing about cost, caching, or failure modes. Given annotation coverage, this is an appropriate 3.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single fragment that front-loads the returned quantities with zero filler. Every word carries information and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return fields, and with zero parameters there is no input to document. The only shortfall is the unaddressed interaction with 'measure' and the lack of a stated precondition for the active document.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required by framing everything around the already-active document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific quantities returned (mass, volume, surface area, centre of mass) and the scope (active document, part or assembly), so an agent knows exactly what the tool yields. It is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from the nearby sibling 'measure', which is a plausible overlap an agent must resolve on its own.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives, and the sibling list contains 'measure', 'get_bounding_box', and 'get_dimensions', which an agent could reasonably confuse with this. The 'active document' qualifier implies a precondition but never says it explicitly (e.g. what happens if no document is active).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.